The previous regime is supposed to have had a disastrous foreign policy which made for terrible foreign relations. That was what the detractors of that regime told us. Today they are in power and their detractors say the same thing: ‘This government’s foreign policy, like most things, is an unmitigated disaster and this is evidenced by the abysmal state of foreign relations.
To get a hang of it all, a simple question would suffice: how does one measure the worth of foreign policy?
The short answer is, ‘healthy foreign relations’. That however can be misleading for foreign affairs is a lot of about saying nice things, smiling for the camera and still getting the short end of the stick. It depends often on who is making the claim, about who is giving medical certificates, so to speak.
A representative of a ‘friendly’ country can say that it has excellent relations with another country because that other country serves the interests of the first or at least does not subvert interests in any way. So too can a sycophantic leadership of a particular country praise the ‘master-nation’ and wax eloquent about relations between the two. We’ve seen that a lot before and after Independence, the most recent being Mangala Samaraweera in his ‘external affairs’ avatar and probably with a nod from his political master(s) co-sponsoring a patently anti-Sri Lanka resolution in the UNHRC. The US and its allies hailed it and their local cheering squad duly cheered.
There are two things that need to be studied and understood before we embark on designing foreign policy. First, we do not live in a flat world. There are powerful nations and blocs of nations; there are weak nations. This is in terms of wealth and military might.
The powerful have ways of arm-twisting the weak and forcing representatives of nations so subdued to hail subjugation as victory. The work of and processes within multilateral agencies are marked by this reality. This is why one need not get excited when representatives of powerful nations talk about ‘friendship’. That is one of the most abused words in the lexicon of diplomacy. The only difference is that these days they don’t use the term ‘White man’s burden’. They force you to submit to their will and nudge you to say ‘Yaaaay!’ That’s if you haven’t said it already!
Given this reality, what we are really talking about when it comes to bilateral or multilateral relations and agreements is the negotiation of the terms of subjugation. This brings us to the second element that has to frame foreign policy: national interest.
It’s an easy term and one that is easily abused. Self-interest, say that of incumbent political leaders or coalitions, can be called ‘national interest’ and since those in power have the inside track on the communications apparatus such subterfuge can easily be marketed (which is why vigilance and voice are important elements of political engagement and which is why, typically, those so inclined are purchased or silenced). What the nation’s interest, ideally, should be figured out through long and informed dialog, and moreover should be seen as something that is dynamic, ever-changing and yet amenable to broad definition where core and relatively more robust elements are identified.
If there is no notion of what the national interest is or if leaders are lazy, ignorant or flippant about the nation’s interests, they are easy prey to the manipulations that abound in international forums.
Importantly, a nation can and should have multiple interests. Some of them may of course be privileged at specific times and under specific conditions, but it has to be understood that all of them are in the picture, always. There are different ways of defining different interest, this has to be understood as well. Security, for some, could be a military matter whereas for others it could include food security, a secure livelihood, a healthy environment etc. For still others, it would resonate with territorial integrity, sovereignty and true and wholesome citizenship. Apart from all this, as mentioned, the multiplicity has to be taken into account and the entire gamut taken as a matrix. Therefore policy designers will have to contend with prioritizing, giving more weight to certain elements over others and always factoring the ‘long term’.
A simple example will illustrate. Some might say, as Dr Harsha De Silva has, that it is prudent to frame foreign policy in terms of economic imperatives. However, economic imperatives, just like ‘development’ are not givens, but are value-laden and not politically innocent. Dr De Silva’s ‘imperatives’ are essentially neoclassical and are therefore attended with all manner of fallacies. ‘Growth-led’ stuff, to give another example, may have little room to accommodate environmental concerns. Out goes the future, right there.
National security can dominate the equation, at times. So too a frail economy or a failed/failing state (of affairs), or even a floundering government. Inept, corrupt, dictatorial and/or treacherous leaders could conflate political survival with national interest. They could run to their preferred big brother in the international community, plead their case, genuflect if necessary and obtain relief. Foreign policy can be framed in that way too. They can play Brown Sahib. They can be pawns.
In the end, for as long as we remain deficient in some way, we open ourselves to machinations. If we know what the nation’s interests are and have the wisdom to anticipate the interests of generations to come, then we can negotiate more effectively, we can contest the beautifully worded but nevertheless pernicious terms and conditions of bilateral friendship.
A candidate or a party aspiring to rule this country, for all these reasons, must first and foremost describe and detail ‘The National Interest’ and make that definition open to constant debate. Without clarity on this, there cannot be clarity in foreign policy and moreover leaders will be handicapped when negotiation takes place on all bilateral and multilateral issues.
A candidate or a party aspiring to rule this country, for all these reasons, must first and foremost describe and detail ‘The National Interest’ and make that definition open to constant debate. Without clarity on this, there cannot be clarity in foreign policy and moreover leaders will be handicapped when negotiation takes place on all bilateral and multilateral issues.
Over to you, Messers Nagananda Kodituwakku, Rohan Pallewatte, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, Patali Champika Ranawaka, Ranil Wickremesinghe, Maithripala Sirisena and any other individual entertaining hopes of becoming the next President of Sri Lanka.
Other articles in this series
Malinda Seneviratne is a political analyst and freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindwords.blogspot.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment